If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We were at war, and the enemy had soldiers and agents inside our border. The logical choice would have been to use the military to destroy and remove the enemy, and to extract important information from the enemy.

Terry Britton, P.E.

Engineers believe that if it isn't broken, it doesn't have enough features yet.

Yeah. What is the point? I would rather see the good guys, our military, come into my neighborhood to rid it of a bunch of raghead terriosts than see the black panthers on steriods, ie: national civilan security force that is as well funded as our military, patroling my streets!

Lots of things are "considered." There are meetings all the time at which staff people present alternatives to various questions. That's the staff process. The President chose not to use troops. He didn't call in an airstrike either....unlike the Democratic Mayor of Philadelphia a few years back.

It's a meaningless article and it shows just how low folks will stoop with regard to the Bush administation.

I applaud Bush on this decision. Regardless of what some of you might think the President including Obama does not have the right to disregard Congressional statues, The Bill of rights and the Constitution. This was the radical theory pushed by VP Cheney and his Chief of Staff David Addington that the President is omnipotent and not constrained by any law. There are plenty of Governments throughout the World that are run that way. Almost universally the United States condemns such junta's or dictatorships. Let's not turn into one of them.

Scott L. Silliman, a Duke University law professor specializing in national security law, told the Times that a U.S. president had not deployed the active-duty military on domestic soil in a law enforcement capacity, without specific statutory authority, since the Civil War.

Here the key words might be ... "active-duty military" and "without specific statutory authority". There were definitely military (maybe Reservists or Natl Guard) in the streets of Washington DC in the late 60s during the riots. And they almost called in some Marines to "rescue" some VIPs who were "surrounded" in a hotel in downtown DC. I saw it first-hand.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Scott L. Silliman, a Duke University law professor specializing in national security law, told the Times that a U.S. president had not deployed the active-duty military on domestic soil in a law enforcement capacity, without specific statutory authority, since the Civil War.

It doesn't mean he can't.

subroc

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.